Health care biases

Family members of the Hobby Lobby corporation are opposing a federal court order to restore the morning-after pill to its employee health insurance coverage. Imagine another large corporation denying its members use of antibiotics on grounds that they interfere with God’s will; or a company that opposes use of vaccines for “moral” reasons.

Now that a national health care plan is finally underway, the last thing we need is irrational personal biases delaying its full implementation.

Maryjane Raabe, Denver

This letter was published in the Jan. 1 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Some might use intelligence and common sense to suggest that comparing the “morning after pill” with an “antibiotic” is akin to comparing apples with oranges.

In fact, some might use intelligence and common sense to suggest that the “morning after pill” is actually more akin to…..brushing one’s teeth after enjoying a fine meal. They are designed to prevent something from happening…….as opposed to trying to cure a disease that already occurred.

Thus……the moment President Obama and Obamacare pays for everyone’s toothpaste, dental floss, toothbrushes, and mouth rinse…….and……perhaps……soap, shampoo, and conditioner……..we can then compare apples with apples……..

mrfxx

Sorry Robtf777 – but if one is the victim of a hit and run and has no health insurance, a hospital MUST (by law) take them in and take care of the most serious injuries, just as (believe it or not) ERs MUST by law take in someone who goes into anaphylactic shock from eating peanuts or even diabetic shock from type II diabetes even if they don’t have insurance. Now – the hospital doesn’t have to KEEP them in the hospital if there is a chronic health situation (cancer, diabetes, etc) until the next life-threatening situation arises – but the hospital HAS to take them in – and better yet, IDIOTS like you who whine about personal responsibility are PAYING for their care if they have no health insurance (either by choice or simply because they cannot afford to buy that health care) – or did you honestly believe that hospitals don’t pay at LEAST as much attention to the bottom line as they do to patient care?

By the way – did you really MEAN to compare the male involved in a sexual encounter – married or not, rape or consensual – to a HIT AND RUN DRIVER? How appropriate!

primafacie

Hence, the colloquialism “hit and run,” also known as the one-night stand.

FedUpWithExtremism

Corporations thankfully do not enjoy religious freedom. Yet.

thor

This is a religious conscience issue.

peterpi

Baloney. It’s one more way for “more-moral-than-thou” males to assert themselves over women.
Male employers want to tell women what to do, just like male pharmacy employees want to tell women what to do when they try to buy contraception, just like male politicians want to castigate and ostracize pregnant unmarried women without dong anything about the men who got them that way.

thor

So, you stand by your words even when the owners wife is with him on this issue. It never ceases to amaze me how spiteful liberals can be.

FedUpWithExtremism

Just because his wife is with him doesn’t make it ok. Just another reason not to shop at Hobby Lobby or eat Dominoes pizza.

peterpi

Also, Papa John’s. Rather than raise their pizza prices by 30 cents, they’re urging franchisees to hire only part-time workers so that they can legally deny workers health insurance.

primafacie

Pizza baking and delivery is a low-skill, high-turnover labor market. Benefits such as health insurance and pensions aren’t necessary to attract and hold qualified employees. Both employer and employee know this — or should — going in.

peterpi

Yeah, who cares about a bunch of pizza employees? Just throw ‘em a quarter and tell ‘em “Thank you, now beat it!”
It’s called “socialize the cost, privatize the profits”.
By denying part-time workers health care, Papa John’s makes loads of money. When a worker gets sick, why he or she can go to a public health clinic and let the taxpayer pick up the tab.
What happens to Papa John’s CEO’s generous health care, generous pay, generous perks, if those low-life employees simply don’t show up, hmmmm?

primafacie

If they don’t show, they don’t get paid and the employer makes other arrangements to get his product to the customer.

Employment isn’t a charity or a means for social engineering and subsidizing universal health insurance. It’s a mutual exchange of labor for compensation. Believe it or not, the laws of supply and demand, not to mention payment commensurate with productivity, are the driving forces.

peterpi

You advocate a ruthless view of employer-employee relations that this country hasn’t followed in decades.

In a large-scale operation, the employer always has the upper hand.

TomFromTheNews

I proudly stay away from all such pizza franchises. My local mom-and-pop pizza parlor (Pietra’s in Wheat Ridge) has been going strong for nearly 50 years. And they make awesome pizza!

peterpi

Liberals have nothing on conservatives when it comes to spite.
How about religious ministers saying that voting for Obama was a sign of the Anti-Christ’s return?
How about the fact that if a woman business owner decided not to cover Viagra, her male employees and men’s organizations would rise up and shut her down?
“Religious conscience” has been used as a reason to not hire gay people.
“Religious conscience” was used in the 1960s as a reason by some white employers not to hire blacks.
It’s pure anti-woman bias, period. At least own up to it, thor.

TomFromTheNews

No, this is an “agreeing to take care of your employees’ medical needs” issue. If you say you provide this service for your employees, stick to your end of the agreement.

thor

Correct, if it is something you said you would do upon employment. Hobby Lobby never told a prospective employee they would provide the morning after pill.

TomFromTheNews

If an employer says they will provide a plan for employees’ medical needs, AND if those needs, according to the employee and her doctor, include the so-called “morning after pill”, it does not/should not invalidate said medical benefits. This is just another example of an employer and his religious beliefs telling an employee how to live her life and what is or is not “moral”.

Disgusting.

thor

If the employer denied the employee coverage for a flu shot for religious reasons, that would be unreasonable. But denying something like the morning after pill or Viagra, those are things that should come out of the employees pocket. Disgusting.

TomFromTheNews

Nobody said anything about flu shots or Viagra. You do not provide a reason (as the employer in question has not provided a real-world substantive reason) as to why birth control of any kind should “come out of the employee’s pocket.

If you or the employer wants to venture into Rush Limbaugh territory (calling people “sluts” without knowing their private situation), get ready to deal with the consequences.

thor

I said something about flu shots and Viagra. Do you have the same trouble tracking a conversation that toohip and Obamawins does? We are talking about denying health coverage due to religious convictions. People on your side of the argument want consistency and I gave it. Like I wrote, we don’t want to give medical coverage for the morning after pill due to religious conviction. Some people have a religious conviction about immunization. To deny that would be wrong, but not to deny the morning after pill or Viagra. As far as Rush is concerned, he has his opinion and I have mine. Why drag him into the conversation. Nothing I wrote is remotely similar to what he said.

TomFromTheNews

“We are talking about denying health coverage due to religious convictions.”

Since health needs are determined by patients and their doctors, HOW DARE YOU DO THAT?!

The fact that you support denial of access to some medical services and products because of some as-yet unspecified “religious conviction” suggests that those seeking the pill or service or whatever must have “unreligious” intentions, as if YOUR “religious convictions” matter a damn in THEIR lives. They want a product or service that you (the employer) believes to be “immoral” or something, so they, too must be “immoral” or something (Rush: “Sluts”).

This is all about employers, whose private business it is NOT, making it their business to interfere in the private lives of patients and their doctors.

thor

I don’t support the denial of anything. But the owners of Hobby lobby have to live with their convictions. HOW DARE YOU DENY THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

peterpi

And Hobby Lobby’s convictions conveniently only inconvenience women.

thor

pete, how do I say this delicately: Sometimes you write the dumbest things. There is nothing convenient about religious convictions. I’m sure you know that. But, has anyone asked the women working for Hobby Lobby how they feel?

TomFromTheNews

Then, clearly, Hobby Lobby needs to get more honest: We will give our employees health care benefits that WE think are important.

(By the way, where in the Constitution does any of this come into play? No one is being denied anything except medical care determined to be needed and relevant by patients and their doctors.)

thor

No one is being denied anything. But the company is saying “We don’t want to PAY FOR the purchase of the morning after pill, etc… Now, is that clear or do you want to keep insisting that they are denying someone something?

bleeth

LOL!

How in the world is anyone denying the owners of Hobby Lobby their constitutional rights?

They chose to start a business in a secular nation with secular health care. They are required by law to supply their employees with health insurance. They have no right to dictate what type of care their employees receive through that healthcare.

thor

Nor do they want to. But they also don’t want to provide for something that is both against their religious convictions and is somethig that the women can provide for themselves.

bleeth

“that the women can provide for themselves.”

Uh huh. This is nothing more than religious zealots trying to control women. It’s none of your business what type of healthcare women choose for themselves.

We all pay for things we don’t like. I don’t necessarily like paying for medication for irresponsible people that refuse to lose weight or eat right but that’s part of how an insurance pool works.

According to your notions, I could easily start my own religion and say that it’s against my religion to pay for cholesterol medication for fat people.

thor

” It’s none of your business what type of healthcare women choose for themselves.” Actually, its none of our business what kind of healthcare women provide for themselves. That’s not the issue. The issue is, who’s going to pay for it. Hobby Lobby doesn’t feel it should pay for something that goes against its convictions.

Now, as to your notion that you could start your own religion, I say, go ahead. If you could convince enough people that your religion is legit, I would back your conviction about not paying for cholesterol for fat people. But then, why are we paying for cholesterol medication for fat people in the first place.

bleeth

No.

The issue is all about controlling women and nothing more. Your religion should not interfere with anyone’s healthcare needs. Nobody is forcing you to take birth control pills or any other pill, therefore, your religion is not violated.

BTW, where does it say in the bible that women aren’t allowed to take birth control?

thor

Your question about the Bible is a ruse, so drop the attitude. Now, about controlling women, where do you get such an idea. Are you trying to be controversial? If you really want to talk about controlling women, which I don’t think is a very important issue to you, you would be talking about Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia where women are really controlled. And if you want to bring the Bible into the discussion, then you would have to admit that the Bible is influential in liberating women, not subjugating them. The Constitution protects our religious beliefs. It does not guarantee our receiving healthcare, however. The bottom line is that Hobby Lobby feels strongly that their religious convictions are being violated by having to offer any form of birth control as part of their healthcare package that they offer to their employees. And with the plethora of birth control devises available to women, at fairly inexpensive prices, those who work for any company should be able to afford their own. After all, my wife and 3 daughters managed to afford birth control all on their own.

bleeth

My question is indeed valid. The constitution may protect your religious beliefs but it also protects those of us that choose to NOT believe as you believe. Nowhere in the bible does it say anything about controlling women’s healthcare. I’ll drop the attitude when you drop yours and stay the heck out of other people’s lives.

Arrogant ignorance is the hallmark of religious fundamentalism. Hobby Lobby has absolutely no right to dictate to it’s female employees what medication they take.

thor

Hobby Lobby does not want to dictate anything, nor do they want something they feel goes against their religious convictions to be dictated to them. And on, the Bible doesn’t talk about women’s healthcare, but it does talk about life. This is a right to life issue, not a medical issue. Boy, you guys are sure narrow minded about this issue. Lastly, if this was an anti-woman issue, that would be stupid on their part. Who do you think are their biggest customers?

peterpi

You guys are the narrow-minded ones. Pro-life groups have boycotted companies offering contraception in their employment plans. Boycotted companies that offer employees with same-sex partners the same benefits as employees with opposite-sex married partners.
And always they invoke God as if they had a monopoly on God’s time, or as if God matters to a secular debate.

thor

Boy, did you jump on the narrow minded comment. But you wouldn’t hesitate to say we are. (In fact, you just did.) I will agree that some who believe the Bible misuse it to make political arguments. But, non-believers like to use it also. Just look at the comment by bleeth to me. And I never talk about boycotts because I think changing hearts works better. Most abortion clinic workers are not committed lefties and most women who go there are confused and looking for answers, so boycotting those centers isn’t helpful. (But crisis pregnancy centers are.) Now, concerning boycotting companies, will you be fine with people boycotting Hobby Lobby or with those who boycotted Chic-fil-a?

peterpi

??? The boycotters are boycotting both for the same reasons.
I dunno about any Hobby Lobby boycott. The Chic-fil-A boycott failed spectacularly.
The Chic-fil-A folks also repeatedly said they didn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, regardless of the founder’s views. Plus, most C-f-A owners are franchise holders from a wide variety of backgrounds. So, the boycott of them may have hurt people who are sympathetic to GLBT people. Not to mention that in order to cause enough hurt to C-f-A to get to the corporate owner, a lot of franchisees have to fail.
So, I ignored the C-f-A boycott.
It’s like Coors: The family is incredibly conservative, but the company sells beer to whomever has the bucks to buy it, and has quite progressive GLBT employee policies. One Coors brother told the others “Do you want to run the company to make money or to make a social statement?” So, the more conservative brothers grumble, but accept the profits.
Good, old-fashioned, American capitalism. Make money, then do with it as you wish, support the causes you wish, but make money first.
As a former Disney Corp exec said to a bunch of disgruntled anti-gay types upset that gay people congregated at Disney theme parks: “No one ever ran a successful business by turning away paying customers.”

thor

So, since you don’t care about boycotts, why did you bring it up? Or do you care but can’t just come out and say so?

peterpi

I was using boycotts to show how, in my view, conservative religious types are the narrow-minded ones.
Regarding boycotts, in the 1960s and 1970s, some people boycotted KFC because Colonel Sanders was allegedly anti-Jewish. I didn’t know one way or the other, but I felt that even if he was, a lot of KFC franchises would have to shut down in order to pinch Colonel Sanders’ income, and that some of those closed franchises might be owned or run by Jews, thus defeating the very purpose of the boycott.
That’s been my attitude towards boycotts since.
I don’t care if a business closes on Sundays or not.
I don’t care, mostly, if a business owner spouts off on family values, as long as the business itself is open to all customers..
In fact, whenever the American Family Association goes after a business for being gay-friendly or Bill O’Reilly hounds a company for saying “Happy Holidays”, I call up the companies up and thank them.
I did boycott Domino’s Pizza when their founder was funding Operation Rescue, whom I consider to be organized thuggery, but then the founder sold the business. Not to mention the quality of their pizza improved not too long ago.

peterpi

Regarding Hobby Lobby,
from the corporate website FAQ:

“Why are you closed on Sundays?
We have chosen to close on the day most widely recognized as a day of rest, in order to allow our employees and customers more time for worship and family.”

That’s also posted on the doors of their shops.
Now, let me emphatically say they are free to close whatever days they wish, but, I find that statement to be sanctimonious. Other businesses close on Sunday without explaining anything.
And,
There may be employees who want time for worship with their families on Saturdays, or Friday mornings. I bet Saturday is a pretty busy day for them. I wonder what the chances are of getting Saturdays off?

bleeth

We’re narrow minded?

That’s got to be the biggest hoot of the day.

You use god as an excuse to push your agenda of controlling women. Personally I think that’s shameful. Yes, Hobby Lobby is dictating it’s religious dogma on it’s employees. You can paint it any color you want, call women stupid, whine that it’s freedom of religion but there’s no denying that it’s all about control.

It’s right in front of you thor.

thor

I just love to tweak self-righteous liberals with the same things they falsely claim about conservatives. Now, about your baseless allegation that I’m pushing an agenda to control women. You have only made the allegation, which to liberals is all that matters. But you have not delivered any proof. On the other hand, I point out that there are places on this earth where real oppression of women takes place and you are silent. That is the real hoot of the day.

Now, about Hobby Lobby, did you ever ask the employees how they feel about their employer. And their employer is not dictating religious dogma to the employees, but fighting a battle with the government. But n one of this would be necessary if the bill passed referred to as Obamacare had been read before it was signed.

peterpi

“I just love to tweak self-righteous liberals …”
ROFL
You do that, while at the same time you ignore self-righteous conservatives.

thor

ROLF back at ya’. When was the last time you took on liberals on this blog?

bleeth

You need to open your eyes to actually see the proof. I know it’s difficult being a member of the christian taliban. You wouldn’t know real oppression if it bit you on the ankle.

“But n one of this would be necessary if the bill passed referred to as Obamacare had been read before it was signed.”

I think you mean romneycare. In any case, if you look at the big picture which obviously you are incapable of doing, you would see that this wouldn’t even be an issue if we had a single payer system in this country. Oh, and BTW thor, anyone that’s worked for me doesn’t have to worry about being discriminated against because they have ovaries.

thor

Members of the Christian taliban are ministering in countries where people like you have no idea how bad it is. No, it is Obamacare because it is a federal law and Romneycare was a state law. I’m glad you admitted that you are in favor of a single payer system. Now, can you give me some solid reasons why that would be good for our country. Lastly, women are treated just as well at Hobby Lobby as at your place of business. This isn’t a discrimination issue, no matter how hard you yell it out. But we will just have to agree to disagree.

peterpi

Yes, you and I also will have to agree to disagree, because it IS a discrimination issue.
I have yet to hear of a single large company self-piously denying any treatment insurance coverage to men because of the employer’s conscience. It only happens with women’s treatment options.
I know of no employer who cites conscience and denies male prescription drugs for treating a naturally occurring decline in male sexual ability. I know of no employer who cites conscience and denies vasectomies — a procedure that clearly denies natural processes as surely as female contraception allegedly does.
Nope. It’s amazing how corporate conscience only gets bothered by women’s health issues.

thor

Yes, we will have agree to disagree. Yes, both you and bleeth are more wedded to your ideology than to women and their health. No, corporations are not bothered by women’s health, but it fits your ideology to say so, so you will insist that you are right. No, you don’t really care about the female of the species or you would find the murder of about 500,000 females a year through abortion to be revolting. So, claim concern all you want,but your actions speak louder that your words.

bleeth

If abortion is murder than the act of sex is a felony.

I guess you’re against sex.

That explains a lot.

primafacie

That’s an absurdly silly assertion.

bleeth

Not at all.

Your side is always claiming that abortion is murder. If this is true, then the act of sex itself must be a felony.

The only absurdity that exists here is using religion as a tool to control a demographic of people to behave the way you want them to.

primafacie

You have me confused with someone else. I’ve not positioned myself with the “side” that “claims abortion is murder.”

But even if I did equate abortion and murder, that doesn’t make the sex act a felony. For one thing, there must be legislation establishing the sex act as a crime, which hasn’t occured. Additionally, that would be analogous to building a house being a crime since arson, a crime, can destroy it. Patently absurd.

bleeth

“Members of the Christian taliban are ministering in countries where people like you have no idea how bad it is.”

So what?

“it is obamacare because it is a federal law and romneycare was a state law.”

Apples and oranges. The concept originally came from the conservatives and now it’s frowned upon by the conservatives because they’re to busy catering to the far right to get elected instead of doing what’s right for this country.

“Now you can give me some solid reasons why it would be good for this country.”

I’ll be happy to since you can’t see what’s right in front of your face. In fact, we can start with the simple fact that we wouldn’t even be having this particular argument if we had a single payer system. Religious cultists that choose to own and operate their businesses wouldn’t be inflicting their notions of morals on their women employees because they would not be obligated to provide them with health insurance.

Yes, that’s right thor, this discrimination issue wouldn’t even be a blip on the map if we had a single payer system. Your religious sensitivities would no longer be on the chopping block and women wouldn’t have to worry about about the arrogant and ignorant moral minority stepping in, attempting to dictate their healthcare, telling them when they should start families, how to control their acne, uterine cysts, pain, etc.

Like I said before, you can paint it any color you want. It’s a control issue AND it’s about controlling women.

thor

So what! So what! You are the one making the assertion that I wouldn’t know oppression if it bit me on the ankle. You are probably very comfortable and, I doubt, have ever gone to a foreign country to help feed the hungry or build temp. housing for victims of nature. I’ve done both. The point I made was that the little bit of inconvenience a woman might experience in this country if they have to pay for contraceptives pales in comparison to the life women live in foreign countries. Man are you narrow minded about your opinion. Do you even care about the women or are you driven by your ideological stand.

peterpi

bleeth’s point is still valid:
Under a single-payer health care system, people of religious conscience wouldn’t be harmed.
Thank you for the work you’ve done overseas, but nonetheless,
a group of self-righteous men want to determine for themselves what is fit and proper for American women to use or not use.

bleeth

Well said. especially the self-righteous man part.

bleeth

Is this what it’s about for you, comparing oppression? Unfortunately for you, this is what you’re going to get in this country when you allow women an education.

If you’ve truly worked abroad, you should know what to expect when you come across a nation of women that are educated and they’re certainly not going to put up with any crap from others like yourself, using god as a tool to push your notions of morality and control.

No thor, the educated women of this country know good and well what goes on in other countries and they’ll be damned if they’re going to let the christian taliban dictate to them how they should be handling their “lady parts” or any other part for that matter.

If I were you, I would look long and hard at who really has the narrow mind.

peterpi

Thank you. Well put in your last sentence. “Freedom of corporate conscience” only gets invoked on women’s health issues.

bleeth

You’re welcome.;-)

peterpi

“People on your side of the argument want consistency and I gave it. Like I wrote, we don’t want to give medical coverage for the morning after pill due to religious conviction. Some people have a religious conviction about immunization. To deny that would be wrong, but not to deny the morning after pill or Viagra.”

You’re condemning yourself with your own words.
You’re being inconsistent.
If it’s OK to use “religious conscience” for an employer to refuse to pay for contraception coverage, then it’s OK to use “religious conscience” to refuse to pay for immunization shots.
You want to judge religious conscience..

peterpi

Why is denying flu shots for religious reasons unreasonable? It violates the employers’ conscience. How dare you want to violate an employer’s conscience!
If employer conscience is good enough for women’s contraception, it’s good enough for flu shots.
But you like the employer who denies contraception while you dislike the employer who denies flu shots. That’s the sole difference.
I dislike both.

ember8214

Would certainly hate to have Maryjane defining “moral and morality” for me or any one else. I am reminded of a women holding a sign at a Tea Party rally in 2010 in Castle Rock ( I have pix of her) that claimed the Tea Party was immoral. When I went up to her to ask her to explain the basis of her sign she was completely unable to do so. Upon additional questioning of the basis of her moral underpinnings she claimed to not believe in God or any religion or any defined set of moral beliefs. So when the Maryjanes of this country start harping on any beliefs as moral or immoral I think of the woman in Castle Rock.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...